Welcome to The Rant! Your very own electronic cesspool of naughty, left wing propaganda. MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Monday, January 30, 2012

An International Embarrassment

Do you have any idea how the rest of the world views the train-wreck of American politics and politicians? We're a joke. We should change the words on the Seal of the United States from "E Plurbus Unum" to "Make 'em Laugh". It's gotten that pathetic.

"Newt Gingrichhas already achieved the improbable effect of making Bob Dole look cuddly....When Gingrich started muttering about putting millions of children in orphanages to be raised by a government that he believes can't do anything right, some of my compatriots here on what passes for the left were chilled to the bone."

Molly IvinsNovember 1994.

I miss Molly Ivins.Last week in a piece that appeared on the Huffington Post, Robert Reich (photo left) chided Democrats who were giddy over the prospect of Newt Gingrich getting the nomination at the Republican National Convention this summer. He went on to imply that anybody who would hope for such a thing ought to have his or her head examined. As usual he makes a good point. Robert Reich has a pretty good track record when it comes to making good points, have you ever noticed that?

Part of me (the part that likes jumbo chocolate ice cream cones) is just giddy at the thought of Gingrich getting the nomination of that disgusting party. The other part of me (the part that understands that jumbo chocolate ice cream cones are not particularly good for me) is horrified by the idea.

Twelve years ago I was jumping for joy when the GOP gave their nomination to a half-wit from Crawford, Texas named George W. Bush. "He'll never win in the general election", I remember saying at the time. Turns out I was right. What I didn't realize was that the Bush Mob would be able to steal that election. Who's to say that Newt Gingrich won't be able to do the same thing in 2012? Think about it: All of the pieces (and people) are still in place that would allow history to repeat itself.

NOTE TO THE DEMOCRATS: Be careful what you wish for.

I imagine the that the whole question of a Gingrich candidacy is moot at this point. The Newtster has always had this unfortunate tendency of administering self-inflicted body-blows just as things are going his way. Last week he cheerfully lived up to his reputation. For your reading pleasure:

"By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon. And it will be American....when we have 13,000 Americans living on the moon they can petition to become a state."

Newt Gingrich25 January 2012

Wonderful. He's against Puerto Rican and DC statehood but wants to add the lunar surface to the union. Ain't that a hoot? Ya gotta love the guy. Ya just gotta! Can you even imagine the roar of international laughter that would be heard if any American president was arrogant enough to claim the moon as sovereign US territory? Since that little gaffe last week, Gingrich's poll numbers in Florida have taken a bit of a dip as you might imagine. When your act gets even too weird for the Tea party crowd, it's probably a good idea to pack up and go home. But that's not Newt's style. He's in this for the long haul, baby. If he's going down in flames he's determined to bring his party (and Mitt Romney) down with him (Not that that would be a bad thing you understand). When all the dust has settled his speaking fees will be through the roof . A real class act that Newt.With each passing day Mitt Romney appears more-and-more to be the guy who's going to bring home the big prize at this summer's convention, but you never know. 2012 is turning out to be such a peculiar political year - and it's barely begun. Here's Mitt's problem: The establishment Republicans know damned well that the "base" detests him, and that he's not likely to inspire them to come out en masse on Election day. Also Romney's citation of his Mexican/Cuban heritage in the most recent debate probably didn't do him one bit of good.. It will be just another reason why the half-witted "base" of that disgusting party will not be inspired to come out in droves for him on election day.

A "liberal" Massachusetts Mexican Mormon for president? I can almost hear the tea partiers quivering.This might turn out to be the first convention in a century where the winner of the primary has the nomination denied to him. In 1912 the mantle of standard-bearer was seized from Theodore Roosevelt and handed over to William Howard Taft, leaving the GOP hopelessly split and leading to an easy victory for Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Might history repeat itself? I don't think that this scenario is as far fetched as you might imagine - or is this merely wishful thinking on my part? We shall see.Tom Degantomdegan@frontiernet.net

SUGGESTED LISTENING:

Here is a link to listen to a recording of Theodore Roosevelt from a century ago, recorded during the campaign of 1912:

89 Comments:

I do agree with Newt that we should colonize the moon. We should send him up first. Then cancel all further trips to the moon for the next 10 years. I'll even chip in to send anyone who wants to have an "open marriage" with him!

"Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation."

It may go to the convention floor but Newt's poll numbers are hitting the skids and he isn't attracting a lot of financial support. Romney, on the other hand, has a slight lead over Obama, which is not a very comforting thought.

We already are an "international embarrassment" just by virtue of these crazy know-nothings even thinking they have the qualifications to be president.

A Florida Bush Stays Silent, and to Many, That Says a LotBy Jeff ZelenyPublished: January 29, 2012"A steady stream of endorsements has been flowing to Mitt Romney, with his campaign promoting Republicans who are giving their blessing to his presidential candidacy. Yet on the eve of the Florida primary, he has been unable to land the biggest catch of all: Jeb Bush."http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/us/politics/jeb-bush-remains-silent-on-endorsement.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Given the fact that he averted a second great depression, killed Osama bin Laden, saved the American auto industry and improved the economy form where it was when he entered the office, I see no reason whatsoever to vote for him.

I guess Newt hasn't sold enough books. So he is in it for the long haul just to extend his book tour. Anyway, the republican base detests Obama far more than anyone else. So count on them to come out in droves on Election Day no matter who wins the nomination.

Reality check for you old pal.These numbers are based on when he took office and now. The foot notes are there so you don't claim they are from FOX NEWS.Still think he save us? Things have gotten worse not better under Obama.

America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

Number of Unemployed1 +9%

Long-Term Unemployed2 +107%

Unemployment Rate3 +9%

“High Unemployment” States4up from 22 to 43 for a 95% increase

Misery Index5 +46%

Price of Gas6 +83%then $1.85 now $3.39

“Typical” Monthly Family Food Cost7+4%

Median Value of Single-Family Home8-14%

Rate of Mortgage Delinquencies9+55%

U.S. National Debt10 +43%

1 Number of unemployed in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.2 “Long-term unemployed” means for over 26 weeks; data for January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.3 Unemployment rates in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.4 “High unemployment” means having a 3-month average unemployment rate of 6% or higher. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Extended Benefits Trigger Notice” for January 18, 2009 and January 22, 2012. http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/trigger/2009/trig_011809.html and http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/euc_trigger/2012/euc_012212.html.5 The “Misery Index” equals unemployment plus inflation. For January 2009 and December 2012. http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.asp.6 Average retail price per gallon, January 2009 week 3 and January 2012 week 4. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W.7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, values represent monthly “moderate” cost per family of four for January 2009 and November 2011. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm.8 U.S. median sales price of existing single-family homes for metropolitan areas for 2008 and 2011 Q3. http://www.realtor.org/research/research/metroprice.9 Residential mortgage delinquencies (real estate loans) for 2008 Q4 and 2011 Q3. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/default.htm.10 Values for January 21, 2009 and January 23, 2012.

Gee Ron, how was I supposed to know that posting 10 facts about Obama's last 3 years in office would up set you so much. You are so predictable, when you are presented with the truth, you attack the presenter.

Anonymous tell me why I should vote FOR Obama, vs. voting AGAINST his opponent?

I think you are overstating the case for Obama - it's become clear that he represents the tycoons.

If Obama wants to take credit for the Osama thing, he is welcome to it - for me, people cheering that event makes me want to puke. The man very well may have been the bad motherfucker - but the American rhetoric of due process and values apparently is bullshit. And Obama may as well take credit for his share of the countless dead civilians while he is at it...

The principal cause of those “facts” are all the consequence of the housing bubble that burst in 2008; the marketing of ‘subprime” (aka high-risk) mortgages sliced and diced and bundled and judged by “esteemed” rating agencies as “investment” grade securities, all before 2008; the approval of mortgage loans during the housing bubble based on wildly inflated values to people who had no possibility of repayment; the orgy of spending billions of unbudgeted money waging wars searching for WMD’s that did not exist; the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that allow billionaires like Warren Buffet to pay less Federal taxes as a percentage of income than the percentage paid by his secretary, all of which led us to the brink of a global financial meltdown in September 2008 that would have made the Great Depression of the 1930’s seem like a walk in the park had drastic measures not been adopted.

Even the Bush administration recognized in 2008 that we were on the brink of a global financial meltdown and started the drastic measures that kept the economic meltdown to only be called the Great Recession.

Your “facts” may all be correct but the implication that events after 2008 are the cause of those “facts” is grossly misleading. Co-variation does not prove causation.

Ron, ole buddy,if what you claim is true, that it's all Bush's fault, then why, after the trillions of dollars spend by Obama have things gotten worse? Don't give me that line of crab that it was worse than Obama thought.After three years in office and trillions of dollars spent, things have not improved. Why should I vote for Obama based on his record?

I was thinking of F.D.R. last night and wondering how long his programs took to be effective and how many times he had to refine them, also he spent 3 terms in office. It seems that he was up against a lot of the same problems President Obama has. We still are not dealing with things that so many people cannot confront, CHANGE-this is something F.D.R. really got, especially with the banks. (unfortunately not w/ civil rights) I agree that another Republican coup is not out of the question. However, for sheer, off the wall madness, Gingrich is jaw dropping entertainment.

I'd be happy to elaborate. In 1961 when JFK gave that legendary address to the Congress, getting to the moon was a viable, scientific option.

Having "permanent bases on the moon" - not to mention 13,000 people living there by 2020 is not only not viable, it serves no palpable scientific advances. And if you know how it might be - on both levels - I'd love to hear your hypothesis.

By the way, to be fair, I don't fault Obama for not saving the auto industry. No one could have - not reasonable expectation.

And, moon speech. At the time, it was just as outlandish to think we could land a man on the moon as to think we could have a base on the moon. But, again, to be clear, I don't support that necessarily.

Is this the reason I should vote for Obama instead of the GOP candidate?

USA TODAY...WASHINGTON – House Republicans are expanding their probe into the Obama administration's energy programs, investigating $500 million in green job training grants that reached just 10% of its job-placement goal, according to a government report.

The program's goal was to train 124,893 people and put 79,854 in jobs. But 17 months later, 52,762 were trained and 8,035, or roughly 1 in 10, had jobs. Those numbers come from an audit by the Department of Labor's inspector general, WHICH RECOMMENDED THE ADMINISTRATION END THE PROGRAM AND RETURN UNSPENT MONEY. (like that will ever happen!)

USA Today: The U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday that the nation's homeownership rate fell to 66% in the fourth quarter, continuing a seven-year drop from a fourth-quarter peak of 69.2% in 2004.

At the same time, U.S. home prices fell 1.3% in November from October and were 3.7% below 2010 levels, the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index indicates.

Falling homeownership — and prices — reflect the worst housing downturn since the Great Depression. And while there are signs that the housing industry's downturn may at least be nearing a bottom, the impact of the collapse will be evident for years to come, economists say.

CNSNews.com) - The amount of money the federal government takes out of the U.S. economy in taxes will increase by more than 30 percent between 2012 and 2014, according to the Budget and Economic Outlook published today by the CBO.

At the same time, according to CBO, the economy will remain sluggish, partly because of higher taxes.

“In particular, between 2012 and 2014, revenues in CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” said CBO, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and the imposition of new taxes, fees, and penalties that are scheduled to go into effect.”

The U.S. economy, CBO projects, will perform “below its potential” for another six years and unemployment will remain above 7 percent for another three.

I just read your blog. I just though I might give what little insight I know about Bush's election of 2001. In short, Bush didn't really win that election. Ralph Nader took a lot of votes that election year, but those people, without Nader in the picture, would have voted for Dole, and there would have been a Democratic president. As I understand it, Clinton tried to call Nader numerous times to ask him to step aside, he did not listen, did not win the presidency, and, well, you know the rest.

That being said, it's good not to be too cocky as a Democrat. As you say, stranger things have happened. And anyhow, I think Romney will get the chance for the GOP, and I hope so, because I just don't think there are enough people to vote for him to defeat Obama. He does have a huge financial backing, which scares me a little.

Who waived public funds to spend limitless in the last presidential election? Was it the same person who promised to be constrained by public funds? Is it the same person you voted for in '08 and the same person you will vote for in '12? The TOTUS is the daily international embarrassment.

Tom, I'd like to say how much I enjoy your writing. The perspective and wit is always appreciated. I've been reading your blog for quite some time. I just made a few posts last week for the first time. I'm home recovering from surgery right now. It's the first time in a long time that I've had time on my hands. Thank goodness I'm fortunate enough to have health insurance. It's a frightening time in your life when you are blindsided by a serious health problem. To not be able to address that problem would be earth shattering. I'm doing well and I only wish everyone could be as well taken care of as I have been.

I wanted to talk a bit about your mention of the world in your first paragraph. Yes there is a whole amazing world out there. Alot of it thinks that us here in the USA have gone totally off the tracks. Many here think that we are the world and could care less about the rest of the world.

I hope to not ramble here but just wish to share a few personal observations. I have traveled for work and pleasure to a great number of places around the world for many years. I've really enjoyed the people experience most of all. Talking to regular people in cafes, markets, pubs, and streets is just fantastic. America has always been of great interest to people from other places. People everwhere loved to hear about our freedom and opportunities. I never could get over how people from other countries had a better grasp of our political goings on than many people who actually live here.

There has always been real cocern and lots of good natured kidding about our politics here, but when Sarah Palin came about on the scene, we became a real laughing stock. It became quite embarassing when everyone began to want to know about her. Then when it was discovered that we actually torture and detain people without legal recourse in the USA, our shining stars weren't thought of as so shiny any more. When people here then actually defended the fact that we could abide by this type of behavior, the stars got even duller.

I'm going to try and enjoy my little vacation from the world for awhile. I don't think I could deal with this political season out in the world right now. I hope this great country can polish all of it's stars again one day. These are only my personal observations. I love and wish the best for our country.

We’re broke, big government is the reason, and Obama wants more government. Is it really that hard to tell what’s coming; more government and very high taxes?

Are we better off today? Well let’s not let the facts get in the way;At Obama’s inauguration;AAA credit rating- Now AA

7.1 % official unemployment rate- Now 8.5 and the real rate is around 15%

$1.85 gas prices- Now $4, this summer around $5

$9.6 trillion in debt- Now about $15.5 trillion

2 wars- Now the Middle East is more violate and Iran is more empowered than ever.

26 week unemployment benefits, 13,524,982 actual unemployed- Now 99 weeks and about 15 mil unemployed. And Obama is trying to convince us that that this is the new norm.

A budget- LOL, 3 years without one, although Obama has submitted some but even the Dems are too scare to pass his budget. If you don’t think major tax increases are coming, for all, under Obama, you’re very stupid or naïve.

Leadership- Obama doesn’t interact with Congress; he doesn’t have press conferences, and only grants interviews with those that won’t ask him tough questions. The country is now more divisive than ever and Obama is a big reason for that. He bad mouths people instead of bringing them together. He trashes the rich, Republicans, and us (i.e. too dumb, too lazy, etc.). Obama may not be the whole problem but he is a problem.

You and Conservtard just posted a bunch of facts showing how were are not better off. The reason is because of conservative policies. Your post basically says conservative policies are failed policies. They always have been and always will.

Watch out Laneman, here comes another long disertation from JTF on just how bad things are now as proof that Obama is a huge failure because he did not turn the magic switch to stop the bleeding from the policies from 2001 to 2008 that brought us to the edge of a global financial meltdown in September 2008.

I guess that is the same as saying that the Great Depression was all FDR's fault. Never mind the go-go policies from 1921 to 1928 and the do-nothing policies from 1929 to 1932.

Now the chosen one is getting religious! Must be election season! What do you expect from a two faced total bullshit artist. What do the secularists JG and Anna Van Z have to say?

The president also recounted his own path to faith after growing up in a household “that wasn’t particularly religious.” He said he begins each morning with a prayer, and he concluded with a personal anecdote about a day when, while vacationing as president in North Carolina, he made a pilgrimage to a mountaintop retreat to visit the Rev. Billy Graham, who was 91 years old at the time.

Graham prayed for Obama, the president recalled, and then Obama returned the favor.

“I didn’t really know what to say,” Obama said. “What do you pray for when it comes to the man who has prayed for so many? But like that verse in Romans, the Holy Spirit interceded when I didn’t know quite what to say. And so I prayed — briefly, but I prayed from the heart.”

He added: “I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment — asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong.”

JTFs Obama is to the right of Bush in every way. He offered Boehner 3 Trillion in cuts to social services when they were on the golf course just so the debt ceiling could be raised. Is that the action of a Liberal?

This country has gone so far down hill since 2000 that it is unrecognizable. It is probable that during the next 4 years there will be an economic and/or political calamity of epic proportions.

And the overwhelming reason for that is Conservative policies by Bush and Obama.

It is not that I am so far to the left, the fact is you moved so far to the right that you fell off the cliff.

An average Conservative from the 50s or 60s would look at your approval of indefinite detention and torture as insane. Spending 30 trillion dollars on bank bailouts,purposeless wars and tax cuts for the elites would be considered treason to them.

One day in the future, when you are looking at the TV with your mouth hanging open because of what you are hearing, it will not be because of Left wing policies.

Our problems are caused by a multitude of issues. To pin them on conservatism is simplistic. The two-party system is severely broken and no longer functions. Also, neither of the Bushes was conservative.

Anonymous said: "It's historic fact, Eleanor was open-minded enough." and later in that same post said: [FDR] "went to hotsprings (sic) in the South, he saw how it was but did nothing. FACT! There's some book about it, I forget the name of it."

I do not know what book you forgot the name of, but I recommend "No Ordinary Time" by Doris Kearns Goodwin published in 1994. The title came from Eleanor's speech on Thursday, July 18, 1940 at the Democratic Convention just before the voting that nominated FDR for an unprecedented third term. It gives a unique perspective on Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

The possibility of significant improvements in civil rights led by FDR was remote at best. His first eight years as President were dominated by the Great Depression. Between the time FDR was elected in November 1932 and he became President in March 1933 some 4,000 banks failed. In those days there was no FDIC and depositors lost all their money. From 1941 to his death on April 12, 1945 there was this little thing (WW2) that kept FDR busy. I am an old geezer and remember those days. Congress would never have passed a significant civil rights bill, and even if they did and it became law, the country was just not ready to accept it. That is sad, but true.

If you read the evidence of the past 10-20 years from newly released government docs (some good books on it out there), you'll realize he was very busy getting America involved in WWII. Using the kind of tactics that would have modern libs foaming at the mouth. I will let all of the FDRophiles research that for themselves. Don't need to hear it from me. It's pretty compelling.

February is black history month. Can you post on how the War on Poverty programs have created the huge plantation run by the Democrats? As long as the Dems throw us enough free stuff redistributed from the taxpayers, they know we will vote for them and keep the plantation of indentured servants in operation.

JTF wrote that I "forgot to add the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED Congress would never have passed a significant civil rights bill."

Those Democrats who controlled Congress in the 1930's and 1940's and their descendants are now Republican conservative members of Congress thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1965. And the Republicans who voted for the CRA of 1965 and their descendants are still wondering what happened to all the Republican moderates.

I like to think of myself as an “FDRophile” and if that is what you want to call me I can only say thank you. I not only lived through that era but also have read literally hundreds of books about that era.

How about Charles A. Lindbergh accepting honors from Adolph Hitler? Italy invading Ethopia and Greece? Japan invading China? Germany invading Poland, then Belgium, Holland, France, and the USSR? All before the Day of Infamy. Given all that I believe Lend-Lease, and cutting off sales of raw material to Japan were logical and well-reasoned responses by FDR.

Where would the world be if we sat out WW2? Probably half our country would be speaking German and the other half speaking Japanese. Or for that matter had we sat out WW1. Read the book "To End All Wars" by Adam Hochschild and see how close the Germans came to winning WW1 in 1918 before the US Army reached critical mass in France.

How could the U.S have sat out WWII as you suggest was a possibility when you say "Where would the world be if we sat out WW2."? The attack on Pearl Harbor removed our choice to sit the war out. Or are you suggesting that FDR did allow DECEMBER 7th in order to force the U.S. into the war?

Precisely. FDR did indeed cajole the US in WWII by not only allowing but putting into place a strategy to induce Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. Based on recent knowledge it pretty much an inarguable fact. And, many would say for good reason. The US was sick and tired of war from WWI and had no stomach for it. He made hard decisions in a very difficult time in the world that, in comfortable hindsight, are easy to criticize. But I never criticized him (for that). Perhaps it is possible the Bush administration did some questionable things out of desperation at a very difficult time. The folks out here incessantly berate Bush yet adore FDR, though both had to make some hard decisions that not all would agree with. It is hypocritical and petty partisanship. Many Presidents have had to make very difficult decisions that, in absence of full knowledge and context, are easy for armchair QB's to criticize.

After WW2 we were the hero's of the world. We saved Europe and even Russia, Japan and Germany with our rebuilding efforts. Our foreign policies and statesmanship was brilliant and forward looking. And for the next 5 decades we had an American society with unparallelled freedom and prosperity.

The only comparisons between FDR and Bush that make any sense is that one of them might have let Pearl Harbor happen and the other 911. Any others are really just ludicrous.

The legacy of the Bush or more appropriately, the Cheney administration, is a growing impoverishment of the middle class with a increasingly powerful Fascist police state. By any metric you can think of we are worse off than in the past.

And since Obama is a Cheney clone, I can not see a future that is not a total disaster.

If Obama is not liberal enough for some who post here, please tell us who in today's America's political scene is liberal enough to be garner your approval?

It would be great to see this person run in the Democrat primary's vs President Obama!

I guess the reason this person hasn't done this is because:

A. it would become clear that there wasn't much difference between them and Obama.B. they had zero chance of wining the nomination.C. a "real" liberal would have less than zero chance of victory in the Nov. election if they were honest in telling the voters their true beliefs. Because, less than 30% of Americans call themselves liberal, and there is no reason to think that percentage would change in an election.D. the DNC would not fully support their campaign.

what i understand about human beings is that it is a lot easier to spend other people's money (and with no budget and with no accountability like the central planners) than your own money! That fact of human behavior hasn't made it through your thick lefty skull (just a joke, just a joke)!

oh, and if only we listened to you bleeding hearts and just spent more money on education, job training, blah, blah, blah, we will have our Utopia!

James,You said "increasingly powerful Fascist police state" was growing due to the Bush administration.

Would you include the following as examples of the increase in our Fascist police state?

1. HHS ruling that would have people buy insurance for things they consider sinful–contraception, sterilization and abortion.

2. A law requiring a citizen to sign up for a federal health insurance plan.

3. The IRS will be used to force the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

4. A govt which passes laws that they are exempt from. And the list from the Congressional Accountability Act are: The Freedom of Information Act. Investigatory subpoenas to obtain information for safety and health probes. Protections against retaliation for whistleblowers. Having to post notices of worker rights in offices. Prosecution for retaliating against employees who report safety and health hazards. Having to train employees about workplace rights and legal remedies. Record-keeping requirements for workplace injuries and illnesses.

I've read your quotes stating that Obama was not a true liberal.It matters little to me if he was called the most liberal senator in 2008. I understand he has defeated two republicans, that is all history/facts.

To rephrase my question, which had nothing to do with your attempts to deflect as shown above, isIf Obama is not liberal enough for you, then who is?

Communism by any other name is still communism: you can change its name to socialism, literalism, progressiveness, Marxism, fairness, or social justice but at it's core it is still the same idea. Proponents of these groups rationalize that the only reason that all previous utopian experiments have failed was because the wrong people were in change. If we only let these new believers be in charge it would be successful. Ha!

It is worth noting that only those that have not experienced communism are the ones that (childishly) believe in it. As one that has experienced life in both situations, I have realized that equality can only come by bringing all to the lowest common denominator, while freedom for the ambitious and creative to achieve their potential raises the entire society to a higher level of prosperity.

We have indoctrinated "conservatives" who say Nazis were really "socialists", while at the same time saying socialists are commies.

Liberals are Nazis. Liberals are commies. Nazis are commies. There's no difference to the narrow indoctrinated brain.

In fact, "conservatism" of the radical Right is closer to fascism and communism than their proponents are able to admit. Commies and fascists alike oppose unions, liberal democracy, a non-corporate investigative free press, educators, and progressives. And they are both in favor of absolute unchecked rule by a powerful elite minority.

Before the radical Right seized power over our government by buying the elections, the US had a "higher level of prosperity". We didn't have permanent war and a surveillance state where we were required to show "papers please".

This was when the elites paid higher tax rates. This was before Wall Street was de-regulated.

Those of us wanting to restore those rates and the rule of law for Big Money are accused of being commies.

Do only commies want our nation to be a free, prosperous and peaceful society?

It would seem so. To a fascist, anyone who disagrees with them is a commie, or a socialist, or a Nazi.

James, let me correct you. FDR did not merely "allow" Pearl Harbor. He had a strategic plan to insure it happened because he believed (rightly) that we needed to be involved. Does that justify the means - I don't know and neither did he. He did what he felt he had to.

We were the heroes of the world after WWII to most of the world. However, we knowingly turned our heads to the plight of the Jews during FDR's administration in the 30's and 40's leading up to the war - despite clear intelligence of the atrocities taking place in places like Poland, Belarus, the Ukraine. You can find flaws with ANY president.

Unlike most folks out here, I'm not choosing sides or a "team". I look at the facts as fairly as I can and call them as I see them. Bush gets more blame than he deserves and FDR more credit than he deserves in my opinion. Though I'm a huge fan of neither.

It is Democrats who no longer have much to offer citizens, except more government, more spending, more control, more regulations, more coercion, more taxation, with no accountability to determine if any of this engorged government produces a desirable result.

Republican governance, on its worst day, is better than Democrat governance on its best day.

Note to the person who writes under the pseudonym "Liberals are Sexy":

The book I recommended to you, "Anatomy of an Illness" by Norman Cousins is very instructive. In 1962 Dr. Cousins was diagnosed with a fatal illness that he was told he could not survive. Survive it he did. He only passed away about ten years ago.

He survived by positivity - surrounding himself with positive people who could lift his spirits - and by laughter. He kept himself fortified on a steady diet of the Marx Brothers and Laurel and Hardy. This was back in the day before home video. He had to rent the 16mm prints.

Laughter, according to Norman Cousins, is the key to wellness.

Forgive me for not going into more detail when I initially responded to you. It was late in the evening and I had had a few!

Tom, Thank you for the well wishes on my recovery and for mentioning the Cousins book. I actually read it some years ago. I've always believed that laughter cures many ills, and usually have several doses of that medicine every day. I never responded to you as I have been medicated and have pretty much been sleeping for days. I'm stating to feel much better and hope to start cutting back on the pain meds. I will be happy when I can have a couple of beverages, as well. I have a batch of home made beer and wine that will be ready to drink as soon as I am able.

For you youngsters out there, David Schoenbrun (1915 – 1988) was a renowned reporter-broadcaster and one of Edward R. Murrow’s “boys” at CBS (1947 to 1964).

From “America Inside and Out” by David Schoenbrun, published in 1984:

As a sixteen year old campaign volunteer for Roosevelt in 1932 Schoenbrun participated with other campaign volunteers in what we now call Town Hall Forums. Schoenbrun asked Roosevelt, “Governor, sir, please do not take offense, but I am troubled by having seen you last week across the river, in Jersey City, arm in arm with Mayor Frank Hague, Everyone knows he is a crooked political boss. What were you doing arm in arm with him?”

Roosevelt started his thoughtful and courteous answer, “I’ve been told that you all have been working very hard for me. That means, I take it, that you think I’ll make a good President. But hasn’t it occurred to you that before I can become a good President, I first must get elected President.” After elaborating on this thought, Roosevelt concluded by saying, “if you ever see someone you admire arm in arm with someone you mistrust, ask yourself this fundamental question: Who is using whom?”

This discourse gave Schoenbrun a very useful lesson, which he describes as, “Very few men are all good, and very few men are all bad.”

We all should remember this when we throw around labels as pejoratives, such as liberal, progressive, radical, conservative, socialist, communist, fascist, and Nazi. These are very tight little boxes, and very few people are any one of these exclusively.

A personal favorite of mine is when you look for the good in people you sometimes are amazed when you find it.